You are on page 1of 2

EQUAL PROTECTION

- DEFINITION requires that all persons or things similarly situated should be treated alike, both
as to rights conferred and responsibilities imposed.
o Similar subjects should not be treated differently
o Directed principally against undue favour and individual or class privilege
o Not intended to prohibit legislation which is limited to the object to which it is directed
or by the territory in which it is to operate
o SUBSTANTIVE EQUALITY IS NOT ENOUGH. IT IS ALSO REQUIRED THAT THE LAW BE
ENFORCED AND APPLIED EQUALLY. However, the law is not required to provide for
equality among all persons if they are not similarly situated. The constitution does not
require that things which are different in fact be treated in law as though they were the
same
- Couched in indefinite language/intentional ambiguity = more adjustability to the swiftly movinf
facts of the changing society
- PERSONS PROTECTED:
o natural and juridical persons.
o Artificial persons are entitled to the protection only insofar as their property is
concerned.
o Citizens, by consititutional reservation (for certain rghts). (valid distinction between
aliens and citizens)
- CLASSIFICATION OF LAW: grouping of things in speculation or practice because they agree with
one another in certain particulars / grouping of persons or things similar to each other in certain
particulars and different from all others in these same particulars.
o Must be based on a reasonable foundation or rational basis and is not palpably arbitrary
o REQUIREMENTS:
Must be based upon substantial distinctions
Superficial differences do not make valid classification
Certain physical differences of persons can in some instances be a basis
of a valid classification (weaker stance of women, height and weight,
health of a person, age, etc.) citizenship is also a valid basis
Congress is allowed a wide leeway in providing for a valid classification
Must be germane to the purpose of the law
The classification, even if based on substantial distinctions, will still be
invalid if it is not germane to the purpose of the law
Must not be limited to existing conditions only
Classification must be enforced not only for the present but as long as
the problem sought to be corrected continues to exist
Theory of Relative Constitutionality: constitutionality of the statute
cannot, in every instance, be determined by a mere comparison of its
provisions with applicable provisions of the constitution since the
statute may be constitutionally valid as applied to one set of fact and
invalid in its application to another. A statute valid at one time may
become void at another time because of altered circumstances.
Must apply equally to all members of the class
It is not necessary that the classification be made with absolute
symmetry, in the sense that the members of the class should possess
the same characteristics in equal degree. Substantial similarity will
suffice.

PEOPLE V VERA:

- Old Probation Law provided that the probation system shall be applicable only in those
provinces for the salary of a probation officer.
- HELD: there is an obnoxious discrimination. It is possible for all the provincial boards to
appropriate the necessary funds for the salaries of the probation officers in their respective
provinces, in which case, no inequality would result for the obvious reason that probation would
be in operation in each amd every province by the affirmative action of appropriation by all the
provincial boards

YSARUEGI V PAL

- Dismissal of an overweight flight attendant

CENIZA V COMELEC

- HELD: classification of cities into highly urbanized cities and component cities and competent
cities on the basis of their regular annual income is based upon substantial distinction

PASEI V DRILON = SUBSTANTIAL DISTINCTION

- HELD: Filipino female domestics working abroad were in a class by themselves distinguishable
from other Filipino female workers, and more so from Filipino overseas contract workers in
general, because of the special risk to which their class was exposed owing to the nature and
conditions of their employment.

PEOPLE V CAYAT

- Law prohibited members of non-Christian tribes from drinking foreign liquor, on the ground
that their low degree of culture and their unfamiliarity with this kind of drink rendered them
more susceptible to its effects as compared to their more civilized countrymen who were less
affected by it.
- HELD: NO VIOLATION. Law is intended to apply as long as the difference between the two
groups continued to exist

ORMOC SUGAR CO. INC. V TREASURER OF ORMOC CITY